Gabby Giffords Husband Espied Purchasing an AR 15

As I suspected was about to happen and alluded to in the 're-post' (below) -
this thread was just closed and we were re-directed here to this thread.
I do not appreciate the killing off of my posts so I am re-posting them here so that they are seen by others in a 'live' (for now) thread.

I do too - and I am not posting it here - not because it would be a violation but because this is NOT the place to post such things - period! There
are many other reasonable venues that can and will handle the truth about the Gifford's affair, Sandy Hook and many others. Unfortunate but true.

AMEN - Right on...........+ he's merely a NASA perp. As for his alleged wife - she was not the intended target, but was 'collaterally' damaged. The
main object of the so-called "assault" was U.S. District Judge John Roll.

This Mark Kelly story basically broke on a Friday. When people were preparing for the weekend and not paying all that much attention.

Whenever Breakdance Obama issues an executive order he doesn't want the media to follow, he does so on a Friday.

Eventually comes Monday. I'm waiting to see how much attention develops over this story. Of course, Mark Kelly has had a weekend to develop a
reasoning for buying the AR 15. I suspect the socialist gun grabbers have been scrambling all weekend to develop their spin.

I'm wondering if Mark Kelly had a 'Senior Moment' when he reflexively reached for the AR after having purchased a .45 handgun? Maybe the cosmic
poisoning syndrome of an astronaut? Whatever.

This breaking story has what might be a photo of the infamous AR 15 purchased by Mark Kelly? It's on a bipod and everything?

Can't say for sure if this is the AR purchased by Kelly.

Gabby Giffords’ Husband Buys AR-15 Kelly’s purchase of an AR-15 was meant to illustrate that point. While he intends to turn the rifle in when he
picks it up, it is unknown what he plans to do with the 1911-style handgun he purchased.

1) They (he and his wife) are ardent 2nd Amendment Proponents, vocal, and politically motivated.
2) She gets shot with a 9mm handgun.
3) After a miraculous recovery to the point at present (kudo's to her and her resolve, I must say) she and her husband are now testifying for more
rigorous gun control legislation, particularly a ban on "assault" weapons such as the AR-15.
4) Mark Kelly legally purchases a .45 handgun, AND an AR-15
5) The story breaks of this action, and he retroactively claims the AR-15 was purchased as an "example" of how easy it is to buy, and claims to be
donating it to the local PD.

As odd as this seems, I think the main item that baffles me completely is the fact that in all this, he KEPT the legally purchased handgun. Thy form
of which his wife was shot in the first place. Should their argument be against possession of easily concealed weapons such as handguns? The AR-15 is
irrelevant here IMO.

II just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a .45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought
that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession of it yet but I'll be turning it
over to the Tucson PD when I do. when I went to my local gun store to buy a .45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even
to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession of it yet but I'll be turning it over to the
Tucson PD when I do.

Most everything related to the Gun Grab mentality of the socialists is irrelevant to the Constitution.

You wonder about the mindset of Mark Kelly when he purchased both guns, the .45 and the AR.

Maybe it was a brain freeze related to PTSD? The husband has been under a lot of stress these past years. He said the AR was an impulse buy. Maybe he
grabbed for the AR in a flash of subconsciously saying, "I've had enough!"

Being an astronaut, Mark Kelly is trained as a critical, logical thinker. Dealing with socialists, it's all emotional outburst with very little
logic.

I was in the other thread too . . . As a resident of AZ and someone that knows what store he made his purchases at . . . I'm posting my response to
this story here (copied from closed thread).

He's full of crap or has no intention of "turning it over". If he passed the check, of which I have no doubt, he would have walked out of the store
with it. In AZ, you don't have to let the weapon sit for any waiting period after the background check comes back. The only reason to "not have
possesion yet" is if he left it there to have something installed or worked on (i.e. scoped mounted and sighted in).

Shops in AZ don't let you just leave weapons there after purchase. Heck, even if you are getting sights or smithing done most require you to wait
until they are finished and take it with you, unless they won't have it done by close.

Nothing about his story makes sense. He and Gabby were gun owners and actually, at bemoaning of the local dems, supported the 2nd Amendment. They
weren't "gun grabbers" before the shooting!!

He knows just what the BC portion of a purchase is and how long it would take. He also knows that his BC would take no time with NICS, due to his
service with this country and the fact he has a CCW.

It's either a cover your butt job or it's planted for some reason . . . All BS!!

1) They (he and his wife) are ardent 2nd Amendment Proponents, vocal, and politically motivated.
2) She gets shot with a 9mm handgun.
3) After a miraculous recovery to the point at present (kudo's to her and her resolve, I must say) she and her husband are now testifying for more
rigorous gun control legislation, particularly a ban on "assault" weapons such as the AR-15.
4) Mark Kelly legally purchases a .45 handgun, AND an AR-15
5) The story breaks of this action, and he retroactively claims the AR-15 was purchased as an "example" of how easy it is to buy, and claims to be
donating it to the local PD.

As odd as this seems, I think the main item that baffles me completely is the fact that in all this, he KEPT the legally purchased handgun. Thy form
of which his wife was shot in the first place. Should their argument be against possession of easily concealed weapons such as handguns? The AR-15 is
irrelevant here IMO.

ANYONE...ANYONE at all...who has followed the Gabby Giffords and Husbands Mark Kelly positions know...

(A) They are pro-second amendment and the right to bare arms.
(B) They are FOR Universal Background checks
(C) They think military assualt style weapons should be banned.

You had me until the "majority of Americans" comment, as that would include #3 on your list.

No proof of this what so ever, except for the very unscientific poll numbers that the Gov and their media arms keep trotting out there. I understand
the "repeat the lie" and manufactured consent strategies employed by telling everybody this . . . and it still doesn't make it true. Walter
Lippmann would be proud though . . .

1) They (he and his wife) are ardent 2nd Amendment Proponents, vocal, and politically motivated.
2) She gets shot with a 9mm handgun.
3) After a miraculous recovery to the point at present (kudo's to her and her resolve, I must say) she and her husband are now testifying for more
rigorous gun control legislation, particularly a ban on "assault" weapons such as the AR-15.
4) Mark Kelly legally purchases a .45 handgun, AND an AR-15
5) The story breaks of this action, and he retroactively claims the AR-15 was purchased as an "example" of how easy it is to buy, and claims to be
donating it to the local PD.

As odd as this seems, I think the main item that baffles me completely is the fact that in all this, he KEPT the legally purchased handgun. Thy form
of which his wife was shot in the first place. Should their argument be against possession of easily concealed weapons such as handguns? The AR-15 is
irrelevant here IMO.

ANYONE...ANYONE at all...who has followed the Gabby Giffords and Husbands Mark Kelly positions know...

(A) They are pro-second amendment and the right to bare arms.
(B) They are FOR Universal Background checks
(C) They think military assualt style weapons should be banned.

AND THOSE POSITIONS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE TO ONE ANOTHER....

As the Majority of Americans feel the same way.

Yes, I stated (A), as for (C), what IS a "military style assault weapon" by their (or your definition)? I honestly want to know.

Is it the way it looks/form?
Is it the color?
Is it the caliber?
Is it full-automatic?
Is it the speed at which you can fire and reload?
Is it the available magazine size (number of rounds in the queue)?

So far, I have not seen a single common and agreed upon set of requirements that everyone agrees upon that defines this new phrase "military style
assault weapon". There have been attempts made in some proposed legislation, however, they are all (as far as I can determine) related to the
look/form of the stock and barrel (i.e. bayonet lug).

Please, I really would like to know what physically defines this term.

Also, I am really surprised they are not addressing the hand gun issue, since that is the form of weapon she was injured by at the time. That puzzles
me too....the focus of their effort is on something that was not used in their case.

There is no standard definition . . . they move the goal posts, as they see fit. That's the point, but you may have already realized that. It's a
complete political/media invention from the mid-90's. Didn't exist before hand. And the reason they have to list actual make/model of each banned
weapon.

Here is a cool link that talks about the history of the term, if you don't already have it . . .

Oh, I am well aware of it and its history. I am simply asking what the definition of the phrase is here by the poster. The poster seems more in-tune
the the Gifford positions than I am, and I do not want to assume a definition. I'd prefer a definition form the poster, as it might be closer to the
same one the Giffords would be using/understand.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.